STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) Vs. SUBHASH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the present criminal leave petition, the State seeks leave to appeal against the order of acquittal contained in the judgment dated 07.07.2008 passed by Shri S.K. Sarvaria, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi in respect of Criminal Appeal No. 03/2004 under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PFA Act'.

(2.) THE prosecution's case stated in brief is that on 30.12.1998, at about 4 p.m., Shri Jeet Ram, Food Inspector purchased a sample of buffalo milk, a food article, for analysis from the respondent at M/s. Subhash Dairy, C -6/26 Hanuman Market, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi, where the said food article was found stored for sale. The respondent was found conducting the business of sale of said food article at the time of sampling. A sample of 750 ml of buffalo milk was taken from an open container bearing the declaration 'Buffalo Milk' by following the procedure under PFA Act and Rules, under the supervision of the LHA/SDM. The said sample was sent to the Public Analyst on 31.12.98. The public analyst after analysing the sample found the same to be adulterated and opined that "The sample does not conform to the standards laid down under item No. A.11.01.11 of Appendix 'B' of the PFA Rules, 1955 because solids -not -fat content were found to be less than prescribed limit of 9% and Milk fat was also less than the minimum prescribed limit of 6%". In view of the fact that the respondent was the vendor -cum -proprietor of M/s. Subhash Dairy and also in -charge of the day -to -day business and had violated the provisions of Section 16(1) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act, a complaint was filed in the Court of the Ld. MM on 27.10.99 under the aforesaid sections. The respondent was convicted by the Ld. MM in C.C. No. 142/99 vide judgment dated 13.12.03 for the offences under Section 16 read with Section 7 of PFA Act, and vide order dated 5.2.04 was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ -, in default to undergo SI for three months.

(3.) FOR the purpose of deciding whether leave to appeal deserves to be granted, a few vital facts which weighed with the learned Additional Sessions Judge in acquitting the respondent, need to be noted. The sample of buffalo milk, a perishable item, was lifted by the Food Inspector on 30.12.98. The sample was sent to Public Analyst on 31st December, 1998. The Public Analyst gave his report dated 14.01.1999 which is Ex.PW -1/F. The complaint was filed in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate against the respondent on 27.10.1999, i.e., after about 10 months of lifting the sample of buffalo milk from the appellant. The Local Health Authority viz., PW2 Shri Prakash Chandra is alleged to have issued the letter Ex.PW -2/B to the respondent intimating him that the sample of milk was found adulterated by the Public Analyst. The copy of the report of the Public Analyst was also enclosed and it was also intimated to the respondent that he can get the sample sent to be analyzed by CFL by making an application in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi within 10 days.